What camera do you use ? And any simple tips.

close
more_vert
Mustard M
Mustard Jul 17, 2013 09:08:48
Replying to Evergreen Dazed

Evergreen Dazed wrote:
Anybody who says they need an expensive DSLR in order to take effective, interesting or 'pleasing' shots isn't a good photographer in my opinion.
That's a very simplistic statement. The photographer is certainly the most important piece of equipment, and there's nothing that can replace an eye for a good composition, and I've certainly seen plenty of examples of idiots with too much money taking dreadful pictures with expensive cameras.

And yet, expensive DSLRs exist for a reason. There are plenty of scenarios where you "need" an expensive DSLR to capture a particular shot. I can think of many stone circles that I couldn't have captured in their entirety without being able to swap out to a wide-angle lens. I also wouldn't have been able to take interior pictures of burial chambers in low light without the high-ISO performance of my current camera. I wouldn't have been able to take illuminated shots of standing stones without the use of wireless flash guns. I wouldn't have been able to take high-contrast shots without the ability to mount an ND grad filter. And the quality of the images is proportionate to the quality of the lenses you mount.

A cheap camera the the hands of a good photographer can be used to produce excellent images. An expensive camera in the hands of an idiot will be lucky to produce decent holiday snaps. Cheap cameras in ideal shooting conditions where the image will never be blown up beyond A4 will produce images of comparable quality to DSLRs with cheap glass, but as soon as you push that envelope, DSLRs win hands down on quality and in producing images in shooting conditions where no compact camera could capture a shot.

Camera snobbery annoys me, but inverse-snobbery isn't the solution.

E Evergreen Dazed
Evergreen Dazed Jul 17, 2013 10:40:07
Replying to Mustard

Mustard wrote:
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
Anybody who says they need an expensive DSLR in order to take effective, interesting or 'pleasing' shots isn't a good photographer in my opinion.
That's a very simplistic statement. The photographer is certainly the most important piece of equipment, and there's nothing that can replace an eye for a good composition, and I've certainly seen plenty of examples of idiots with too much money taking dreadful pictures with expensive cameras.

And yet, expensive DSLRs exist for a reason. There are plenty of scenarios where you "need" an expensive DSLR to capture a particular shot. I can think of many stone circles that I couldn't have captured in their entirety without being able to swap out to a wide-angle lens. I also wouldn't have been able to take interior pictures of burial chambers in low light without the high-ISO performance of my current camera. I wouldn't have been able to take illuminated shots of standing stones without the use of wireless flash guns. I wouldn't have been able to take high-contrast shots without the ability to mount an ND grad filter. And the quality of the images is proportionate to the quality of the lenses you mount.

A cheap camera the the hands of a good photographer can be used to produce excellent images. An expensive camera in the hands of an idiot will be lucky to produce decent holiday snaps. Cheap cameras in ideal shooting conditions where the image will never be blown up beyond A4 will produce images of comparable quality to DSLRs with cheap glass, but as soon as you push that envelope, DSLRs win hands down on quality and in producing images in shooting conditions where no compact camera could capture a shot.

Camera snobbery annoys me, but inverse-snobbery isn't the solution.

I did say expensive DSLRs provide more flexibility, and you choose your lenses to suit the type of shots you are looking for, and the other stuff you've described above are the 'bells and whistles' in my post, but the main 'thrust' of my point, which remains true, and is, in my opinion, a very important point, is that you do not need an expensive camera in order to take what could be considered good photographs.

My post was not inverted snobbery.

btw

"I can think of many stone circles that I couldn't have captured in their entirety without being able to swap out to a wide-angle lens."

Incorrect

"I also wouldn't have been able to take interior pictures of burial chambers in low light without the high-ISO performance of my current camera."

Incorrect

"I wouldn't have been able to take illuminated shots of standing stones without the use of wireless flash guns."

Incorrect

Your expensive DSLR makes it easier for you to do these things, correct. These things are not impossible with lots of cheaper compacts, it just requires more imagination. Im surprised at you.